“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

If the Constitution does not grant a Right, it has no authority over it. When any human being jeopardizes the Rights of another human being, they are held accountable. That is not the same thing as government taking away your Rights; it is the government holding you accountable for your misuse and / or disregard for your Rights and the Rights of the victims of your actions.

The government cannot limit your life. That is left to you and God - and if someone else violates that Right, government acts in your stead to hold those accountable. In any event, government is not limiting your Right. Well, they do, but if we ever get beyond the trolls and establish the facts, it will be easier to see which government is operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.

Let's make this simple, lets look at the US Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th Amendments. The 5th says

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

and the 14th says

Quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Our own US Constitution says your right to life is not absolute, that it can be taken for committing a capital/infamous crime. Your liberty (freedom) can be limited/taken, and your property can be taken to pay your debts.

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

If the Constitution does not grant a Right, it has no authority over it. When any human being jeopardizes the Rights of another human being, they are held accountable. That is not the same thing as government taking away your Rights; it is the government holding you accountable for your misuse and / or disregard for your Rights and the Rights of the victims of your actions.

The government cannot limit your life. That is left to you and God - and if someone else violates that Right, government acts in your stead to hold those accountable. In any event, government is not limiting your Right. Well, they do, but

The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private propertydo not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.

Personal security is nothing more then the right to self defense as has already been established, and "absolute rights" are nothing more than "natural rights".

Why do you suppose the 5th and 14th amendments state the following: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law which says your life, liberty, and property can be taken provided you are given due process. Even your own International law link says your life can be taken: circumstances may justify the taking of life, where necessary, reasonable and proportionate.

Quote:

if we ever get beyond the trolls and establish the facts, it will be easier to see which government is operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.

So you don't want a discussion, what you want is a soapbox to spew your ideological inanity. SMFH This is a discussion board, not a street corner with a soapbox pedestal for you.

Unalienable Rights cannot be taken. End of story. If you lose your Rights in our de jure/ constitutional Republic, you're doing it to yourself. By being a member of our society and interacting with the principals, you agree to be governed by them. The government cannot limit all Rights. YOU make that decision if you commit a crime so heinous that it takes away from another human being their unalienable Rights.

So our rights come from the constitution.
Which is the document that establishes the government.
It is the government that grants the rights, and protects and enforces those rights.

Those rights don't cross the border and follow you into other jurisdictions.

What you get there, is whatever the government there decides to grant to you.

All this "God Given", "Unalienable" stuff is background for why the government should grant those rights.
But what if there is no God? Does that mean there are no rights?
No, you still have the rights that the government decides to defend for you.

You've explained nothing. You're wrong and unqualified to school me in a damn thing except cutting down trees. You proved that when you resorted to name calling. You don't have any legal experience nor do you have a working knowledge of history. I'm tired of the back and forth and you're risking being banned here if you keep trolling and calling me names.

Fair warning.

LMFAO I'm not risking anything here, let alone being banned. SMFH
Do you really believe you are qualified to school anybody on anything?
You don't have any legal experience either, let alone a basic knowledge of history. Blah, blah, blah. LMFAO

So our rights come from the constitution.
Which is the document that establishes the government.
It is the government that grants the rights, and protects and enforces those rights.

Those rights don't cross the border and follow you into other jurisdictions.

What you get there, is whatever the government there decides to grant to you.

All this "God Given", "Unalienable" stuff is background for why the government should grant those rights.
But what if there is no God? Does that mean there are no rights?
No, you still have the rights that the government decides to defend for you.

Have no idea where you are going with that. My Rights follow me into all fifty states, so you're wrong about that.

On you other count, the Tenth Amendment Center says you're wrong:

"It is important to understand that the Constitution does not create rights for anyone. It simply serves as a grant of power to, and a blueprint for, the structure of the federal government. The rights of the people existed before the founding of the United States. The Bill of Rights clarifies limits on the power of the federal government. It declares “We, the people, retain our rights,” and prescribes that the creation of the federal government in no way limits the sovereignty of the states except where specified."

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

The United States Supreme Court says you're wrong:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's obvious that you're mistaken about the sum total of America. The political leaders of the times stated in unequivocal terms that some Rights are natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given. The founders settled on the word unalienable, ascribing Rights to a Creator. I don't see it as being a religious argument as the presupposition is you were born with those Rights making them inherent and natural.

The trolls on this thread are trying to guess where I'm going (even interjecting arguments from other threads.) And you're doing the same thing. I, like the rest of the 300 million Americans have those Rights which the people, NOT the government decide to defend.

And the underlying issue is, since many people do not understand that our system of jurisprudence was built on the presupposition that you have Rights that predate the Constitution and are above the law, we end up accepting tyranny on the installment plan.

LMFAO I'm not risking anything here, let alone being banned. SMFH
Do you really believe you are qualified to school anybody on anything?
You don't have any legal experience either, let alone a basic knowledge of history. Blah, blah, blah. LMFAO

Fair Warning? Do you like Van Halen too, that was a great album. SMFH

Make you an offer: You post your legal education and I'll post mine. If I do have a legal education and work experience, will you agree to NEVER post on this board again? If you will agree, I will contact a moderator, provide transcripts of my education, a list of the positions I've held, etc. That way they can verify it without posting my personal information. Deal? If I cannot provide proof of a legal education and work experience, I'll leave this board and never return.

Make you an offer: You post your legal education and I'll post mine. If I do have a legal education and work experience, will you agree to NEVER post on this board again? If you will agree, I will contact a moderator, provide transcripts of my education, a list of the positions I've held, etc. That way they can verify it without posting my personal information.

I've never claimed to have a legal education, you are the one that claims you have one, yet you are shown time and time again to be incorrect in your "legal" claims, especially in immigration law.

Your Sovereign Citizen documents won't prove anything, they aren't even legally recognized. You have done no legal research for Richard Barrett nor for William R. Coulson. Immigration lawyers do not call you asking for legal advice. Your "Justice of the Peace" did nothing more than allow you to perform marriage ceremonies. Your Hillsdale College certificate for completing the free Introduction to the Constitution course and getting a certificate doesn't make you any more credible than Top Hat Jimmy. When will you get to the point of your OP? (great song by David Lee Roth - ex-Van Halen lead singer)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

"It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right."
James Madison see this important link regarding property Rights

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877